Definition and research guide
This page combines a MeSH definition, publication statistics and selected research abstracts. It is a starting point for reading the literature, not a medical textbook or a systematic evidence review.
Content available: 4 complete abstracts (925 words), 10 references. Full article text is not stored or reproduced here; follow the PMID, DOI or PMC links to read the original sources and their access terms.
Definition
A sulfonamide derivative and adrenergic alpha-1 receptor antagonist that is used to relieve symptoms of urinary obstruction caused by benign prostatic hyperplasia.
Definition: NLM Medical Subject Headings (MeSH) scope note (Public domain (U.S. National Library of Medicine); attribution requested). View the MeSH record.
Also known as: LY 253352; LY-253352; YM 617; YM-617; Flomax; Tamsulosin Hydrochloride; 5-(2-((2-(2-Ethoxyphenoxy)ethyl)amino)propyl)-2-methoxybenzenesulfonamide.
Where it fits in the MeSH classification
- Broader topics
- Benzenesulfonamides; Sulfonamides
Related concepts
- Benign Prostatic Hyperplasia
Research landscape
PubMed indexes 1,594 records tagged with the MeSH heading “Tamsulosin” (counts retrieved 2026-10-31). 340 of them (21.3%) were published from 2020 onward, and the busiest period so far is 2010-2019 with 662 records.
Reviews account for 214 records (13.4%) and meta-analyses for 84. Randomized controlled trials number 430 (27.0%) as a share of all records on the topic. Randomized trials make up a comparatively large share of this literature, which means many treatment questions have been tested directly.
Show the data
| Period | Records |
|---|---|
| through 1999 | 98 |
| 2000-2009 | 494 |
| 2010-2019 | 662 |
| 2020 onward | 340 |
Publication-type chart data
| Type | Records | Share |
|---|---|---|
| Reviews | 214 | 13.4% |
| Meta-analyses | 84 | 5.3% |
| Randomized controlled trials | 430 | 27.0% |
Method: PubMed query "Tamsulosin"[MeSH Terms] with publication-type and date filters, retrieved 2026-10-31.
Reading the evidence in drugs and chemicals
Studies of a chemical or drug can answer very different questions: what it is and how it behaves in cells and animals, how the body handles it, and whether it changes outcomes in people. Laboratory and animal findings often do not carry over to patients, and observational studies of exposures are confounded by who uses a substance and why. Nothing on this page is a recommendation to use, avoid, start or stop any substance or medicine; talk to a qualified clinician or pharmacist about your own situation. Check the dose, the species, the comparison group and whether a patient-relevant outcome was measured.
Evidence from open-access studies
These open-access studies come from PubMed’s best-match results for this heading (papers whose main topic it is), ranked here by citation count, with one recent addition. Each abstract is reproduced in full under its recorded open licence so that you can read the authors’ own words. They illustrate the literature; they are not a systematic summary of it. Citation counts measure attention, not reliability or clinical benefit.
Meta-analysis of the efficacy and safety of combination of tamsulosin plus dutasteride compared with tamsulosin monotherapy in treating benign prostatic hyperplasia [1]
Abstract reading summary — source excerpts
- Opening excerpt
- BackgroundWe performed a meta-analysis to confirm the efficacy and safety of the combination of tamsulosin plus dutasteride compared with tamsulosin monotherapy in treating benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH) during a treatment cycle of at least 1 year.
- Closing excerpt
- 88; P ConclusionThe combination of tamsulosin plus dutasteride provides a preferable therapeutic effect for BPH with a higher incidence of sexual side effects, but combination-therapy can markedly reduce risk of BPH-related symptom progression and acute urinary retention relative to tamsulosin monotherapy.
- Interpretation limits
- Verbatim excerpts from the authors’ abstract; the closing excerpt may describe a finding, limitation or recommendation. Design, population, effect size and uncertainty have not been independently extracted or appraised. Read the complete abstract and linked paper before interpreting the findings.
Read complete abstract (168 words)
BackgroundWe performed a meta-analysis to confirm the efficacy and safety of the combination of tamsulosin plus dutasteride compared with tamsulosin monotherapy in treating benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH) during a treatment cycle of at least 1 year.MethodsRandomized controlled trials were searched by using MEDLINE, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Controlled Trials Register. Systematic review was carried out using the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses. The data was evaluated and statistically analyzed by using RevMan version 5.3.0.ResultsFive studies including 4348 patients were studied. The analysis found that the combination group was significantly greater effect in international prostate symptom score (mean difference [MD], - 1.43; 95% confidence interval [CI], - 2.20 to - 0.66; P = 0.0003), prostate volume (MD, - 10.13; 95% CI, - 12.38 to - 7.88; P ConclusionThe combination of tamsulosin plus dutasteride provides a preferable therapeutic effect for BPH with a higher incidence of sexual side effects, but combination-therapy can markedly reduce risk of BPH-related symptom progression and acute urinary retention relative to tamsulosin monotherapy.
Abstract reproduced from the open-access article under the recorded cc by licence; © the authors. PMID 30871552 · DOI · PMC6419503
Tadalafil Alone or in Combination with Tamsulosin for the Management for LUTS/BPH and ED [2]
Abstract reading summary — source excerpts
- Opening excerpt
- Purpose of reviewAim of our systematic review is to evaluate and summarize the efficacy and safety of tadalafil alone or in combination with tamsulosin for the management of lower urinary tract symptoms (LUTS)/benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH) and erectile dysfunction (ED).
- Closing excerpt
- Our results support the evidence for a more and more tailored and modular LUTS treatment.
- Interpretation limits
- Verbatim excerpts from the authors’ abstract; the closing excerpt may describe a finding, limitation or recommendation. Design, population, effect size and uncertainty have not been independently extracted or appraised. Read the complete abstract and linked paper before interpreting the findings.
Read complete abstract (207 words)
Purpose of reviewAim of our systematic review is to evaluate and summarize the efficacy and safety of tadalafil alone or in combination with tamsulosin for the management of lower urinary tract symptoms (LUTS)/benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH) and erectile dysfunction (ED).Recent findingsDaily tadalafil, in particular 5 mg, according to retrieved studies, appears to be both safe and effective in treating LUTS/BPH and ED, compared with placebo or tamsulosin. The combination of daily tadalafil 5 mg and tamsulosin 0.4 mg allows a better improvement of LUTS compared with both the monotherapies, even if with an increased, but acceptable and tolerated, adverse events rate. After discontinuation of tamsulosin or tadalafil in patients previously treated with their combination, the improvement of LUTS retains significance compared with baseline. Tadalafil 5 mg should be considered a primary treatment option for patients with LUTS/BPH and ED. Evidence highlight an excellent tolerability, safety, and effectiveness profile, both alone or in combination with tamsulosin 0.4 mg. A better efficacy on LUTS relief has been observed for combination therapy, preserving also sexual function. The further switch to monotherapy allows to preserve LUTS relief, but tadalafil only is able to retain ED improvement. Our results support the evidence for a more and more tailored and modular LUTS treatment.
Abstract reproduced from the open-access article under the recorded cc by licence; © the authors. PMID 33108544 · DOI · PMC7591403
A Mixture of U.S. Food and Drug Administration-Approved Monoaminergic Drugs Protects the Retina From Light Damage in Diverse Models of Night Blindness [3]
Abstract reading summary — source excerpts
- Opening excerpt
- PurposeThe purpose of this study was to test the extent of light damage in different models of night blindness and apply these paradigms in testing the therapeutic efficacy of combination therapy by drugs acting on the Gi, Gs, and Gq protein-coupled receptors.
- Closing excerpt
- Furthermore, systems pharmacology drug regimens that stimulate Gi signaling and attenuate Gs and Gq signaling present a promising disease-modifying therapy for photoreceptor degenerative diseases.
- Interpretation limits
- Verbatim excerpts from the authors’ abstract; the closing excerpt may describe a finding, limitation or recommendation. Design, population, effect size and uncertainty have not been independently extracted or appraised. Read the complete abstract and linked paper before interpreting the findings.
Read complete abstract (279 words)
PurposeThe purpose of this study was to test the extent of light damage in different models of night blindness and apply these paradigms in testing the therapeutic efficacy of combination therapy by drugs acting on the Gi, Gs, and Gq protein-coupled receptors.MethodsAcute bright light exposure was used to test susceptibility to light damage in mice lacking the following crucial phototransduction proteins: rod transducin (GNAT1), cone transducin (GNAT2), visual arrestin 1 (ARR1), and rhodopsin kinase 1 (GRK1). Mice were intraperitoneally injected with either vehicle or drug combination consisting of metoprolol (β1-receptor antagonist), bromocriptine (dopamine family-2 receptor agonist) and tamsulosin (α1-receptor antagonist) before bright light exposure. Light damage was primarily assessed with optical coherence tomography and inspection of cone population in retinal whole mounts. Retinal inflammation was assessed in a subset of experiments using autofluorescence imaging by scanning laser ophthalmoscopy and by postmortem inspection of microglia and astrocyte activity.ResultsThe Gnat1-/- mice showed slightly increased susceptibility to rod light damage, whereas the Gnat2-/- mice were very resistant. The Arr1-/- and Grk1-/- mice were sensitive for both rod and cone light damage and showed robust retinal inflammation 7 days after bright light exposure. Pretreatment with metoprolol + bromocriptine + tamsulosin rescued the retina in all genetic backgrounds, starting at doses of 0.2 mg/kg metoprolol, 0.02 mg/kg bromocriptine, and 0.01 mg/kg tamsulosin in the Gnat1-/- mice. The therapeutic drug doses increased in parallel with light-damage severity.ConclusionsOur results suggest that congenital stationary night blindness and Oguchi disease patients can be at an elevated risk of the toxic effects of bright light. Furthermore, systems pharmacology drug regimens that stimulate Gi signaling and attenuate Gs and Gq signaling present a promising disease-modifying therapy for photoreceptor degenerative diseases.
Abstract reproduced from the open-access article under the recorded cc by licence; © the authors. PMID 30947334 · DOI · PMC6736410
Cardiovascular safety of 5α-reductase inhibitors in people with benign prostatic hyperplasia and type 2 diabetes: a propensity score-matched analysis [4]
Abstract reading summary — source excerpts
- Opening excerpt
- Aims5α-Reductase inhibitors are prescribed for the treatment of benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH) and their use is associated with increased risk of incident type 2 diabetes.
- Closing excerpt
- This supports careful monitoring of macrovascular outcomes when prescribing 5α-reductase inhibitors in this population.
- Interpretation limits
- Verbatim excerpts from the authors’ abstract; the closing excerpt may describe a finding, limitation or recommendation. Design, population, effect size and uncertainty have not been independently extracted or appraised. Read the complete abstract and linked paper before interpreting the findings.
Read complete abstract (271 words)
Aims5α-Reductase inhibitors are prescribed for the treatment of benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH) and their use is associated with increased risk of incident type 2 diabetes. This study assessed the long-term cardiovascular safety of 5α-reductase inhibitors in comparison with tamsulosin in people with co-existing BPH and type 2 diabetes.Methods and resultsWe performed a retrospective, population-based cohort study using Scottish Diabetes Research Network National Diabetes Dataset (SDRN-NDS) and IQVIA Medical Research Data (IMRD-UK). BPH patients ≥40 years with recorded type 2 diabetes mellitus and ≥2 prescriptions of 5α-reductase inhibitors or tamsulosin (2006-2021) were included. After 1:2 variable ratio propensity score matching, cause-specific Cox proportional-hazard models were used to compute the hazard ratio (HR) of incident major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE). A total of 11 969 patients were included in SDRN-NDS and 16 492 in IMRD-UK, with median follow-up durations of 3.8 (IQR: 1.7-6.8) and 4.8 (2.0-8.3) years, respectively. In SDRN-NDS, the HR of MACE in patients receiving 5α-reductase inhibitors relative to tamsulosin was 1.15 (95% CI 1.03-1.30, P = 0.007), driven by increased risk of myocardial infarction (MI) (HR 1.20, 1.03-1.40, P = 0.022). This was replicated in IMRD-UK, where HR was 1.26 (1.07-1.47, P = 0.008) for MACE and 1.33 (1.10-1.60, P = 0.005) for MI. We did not observe any increased risks in stroke, cardiovascular death, microvascular complications of diabetes, or faster progression to insulin-based therapies.ConclusionOur retrospective data from two large cohorts suggest that the risk of MACE may be increased among patients with type 2 diabetes taking 5α-reductase inhibitors, potentially driven by increased risk of MI. This supports careful monitoring of macrovascular outcomes when prescribing 5α-reductase inhibitors in this population.
Abstract reproduced from the open-access article under the recorded cc by licence; © the authors. PMID 41544653 · DOI · PMC12946974
Key reviews and meta-analyses
The most cited review-type papers among PubMed’s best-match results for this heading, listed with bibliographic details only. Follow the links for the full text and access terms.
- Research article Tamsulosin as a Medical Expulsive Therapy for Ureteral Stones: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials [5]
- Research article Silodosin versus tamsulosin for medical expulsive treatment of ureteral stones: A systematic review and meta-analysis [6]
- Research article Comparison of Serenoa repens With Tamsulosin in the Treatment of Benign Prostatic Hyperplasia: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis [7]
- Research article Meta-Analysis of Efficacy and Safety of Tadalafil Plus Tamsulosin Compared with Tadalafil Alone in Treating Men with Benign Prostatic Hyperplasia and Erectile Dysfunction [8]
- Research article Prazosin but Not Tamsulosin Sensitises PC-3 and LNCaP Prostate Cancer Cells to Docetaxel [9]
- Research article Comparative Effectiveness of Tadalafil versus Tamsulosin in Treating Lower Urinary Tract Symptoms Suggestive of Benign Prostate Hyperplasia: A Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials [10]
References
- Zhou Z, Cui Y, Wu J, Ding R, Cai T, Gao Z. Meta-analysis of the efficacy and safety of combination of tamsulosin plus dutasteride compared with tamsulosin monotherapy in treating benign prostatic hyperplasia. . 2019. PMID 30871552 · DOI · PMC6419503
- Sebastianelli A, Spatafora P, Morselli S, Vignozzi L, Serni S, McVary KT, et al.. Tadalafil Alone or in Combination with Tamsulosin for the Management for LUTS/BPH and ED. . 2020. PMID 33108544 · DOI · PMC7591403
- Leinonen H, Choi EH, Gardella A, Kefalov VJ, Palczewski K. A Mixture of U.S. Food and Drug Administration-Approved Monoaminergic Drugs Protects the Retina From Light Damage in Diverse Models of Night Blindness. . 2019. PMID 30947334 · DOI · PMC6736410
- Tu H, Ju C, McGurnaghan SJ, Blackbourn LAK, Scottish Diabetes Research Network Epidemiology Group, Pearson E, et al.. Cardiovascular safety of 5α-reductase inhibitors in people with benign prostatic hyperplasia and type 2 diabetes: a propensity score-matched analysis. . 2026. PMID 41544653 · DOI · PMC12946974
- Cui Y, Chen J, Zeng F, Liu P, Hu J, Li H, et al.. Tamsulosin as a Medical Expulsive Therapy for Ureteral Stones: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials. J Urol. 2019. PMID 30694932 · DOI
- Hsu YP, Hsu CW, Bai CH, Cheng SW, Chen KC, Chen C. Silodosin versus tamsulosin for medical expulsive treatment of ureteral stones: A systematic review and meta-analysis. PLoS One. 2018. PMID 30153301 · DOI · PMC6112672
- Cai T, Cui Y, Yu S, Li Q, Zhou Z, Gao Z. Comparison of Serenoa repens With Tamsulosin in the Treatment of Benign Prostatic Hyperplasia: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Am J Mens Health. 2020. PMID 32274957 · DOI · PMC7153190
- Zhou Z, Zheng X, Wu J, Gao Z, Xu Z, Cui Y. Meta-Analysis of Efficacy and Safety of Tadalafil Plus Tamsulosin Compared with Tadalafil Alone in Treating Men with Benign Prostatic Hyperplasia and Erectile Dysfunction. Am J Mens Health. 2019. PMID 31625449 · DOI · PMC6801893
- Spencer BH, McDermott CM, Chess-Williams R, Christie D, Anoopkumar-Dukie S. Prazosin but Not Tamsulosin Sensitises PC-3 and LNCaP Prostate Cancer Cells to Docetaxel. Pharmacology. 2018. PMID 29669348 · DOI
- Guo B, Chen X, Wang M, Hou H, Zhang Z, Liu M. Comparative Effectiveness of Tadalafil versus Tamsulosin in Treating Lower Urinary Tract Symptoms Suggestive of Benign Prostate Hyperplasia: A Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials. Med Sci Monit. 2020. PMID 32327621 · DOI · PMC7195607
About this article
- Sources
- NLM Medical Subject Headings (definition, synonyms); NCBI PubMed (counts, identifiers); Europe PMC (open-access abstracts and citation counts).
- Verification
- Every reference was resolved against PubMed on 2026-10-31; title, year and DOI matched.
- Review state
- automated source verified; no human expert review has been recorded yet.
- Version
- 1, last updated 2026-10-31.
See how EvidenceLib is built. Spotted an error? Email support@evidencehelix.com.
Evidence strength
EvidenceHelix's computed view of the study designs behind this topic: how common meta-analyses, randomized trials and reviews are, how recent the literature is, and a plain-language reading. It describes the design mix of the literature. It is not a quality appraisal of any study, and it is not medical advice.